Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 465 - ITAT DELHIDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- From the details furnished by the assessee we find that it has computed suo-moto disallowance. Further a perusal of the details of the expenses other than interest expenses shows that assessee has incurred expenditure towards administrative expenses. After deducting expenses incurred by the assessee on account of increase in share capital, stamp duty expenses and gratuity expenses the total administrative expenses comes against which the assessee has made suo-moto disallowance which is approximately 18.61% of the administrative expenses. However, without recording any satisfaction the AO has made the disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8 D of the IT Rules 1962 which in our opinion is not justified. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] has held that when suomoto disallowance are shown by the assessee, without recording the satisfaction as to why the working shown by the assessee is not acceptable, disallowance cannot be made. A perusal of the assessment order nowhere shows that the AO has recorded any satisfaction as to why the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee is not correct. Therefore, we find merit in the argument of assessee that in absence of recording of any satisfaction by the AO having regard to the accounts of the assesses as to why the claim of disallowance made by the assessee u/s. 14 A is not correct, no disallowance can be made. The various decisions relied by the Ld. DR are not applicable to the facts of the present case. We find both the decisions relied on by him are prior to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited (supra). In view of the above discussion we hold that no further disallowance u/s. 14 A r.w.r 8 D could have been made. Addition under the head “income from capital gain” - HELD THAT:- We find although the assessee has raised specific ground before the CIT(A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the same. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The AO shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct according.
|